The Clinton camp is DODGING the question about 2006 and earlier tax returns.

[Skwmom]

The talking heads are reporting that Clinton has agreed to release her tax return on April 15th. Tucker Carlson asked the Clinton spokeswoman what about last year's return (2006), not this years and she REFUSED to answer the question.

The right question is where are the 2006 and earlier tax returns YOU HAVE ALREADY FILED? WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
Carl Bernstein was on Tuesday night and said that the Clinton camp was terrified that the tax return issue would be pushed before OH voted so they must be hiding something which really wouldn't go over to well with the working class that they profess to care so much about.

One of the press covering the Obama campaign and Chris Matthews have let the Clinton response "We will release our tax return on April 15th" go unchallenged.

[leftofcool]

1. If you have 2007, you need 2006?

Where are Obama's 2007 tax records?

[dkf]

10. 2001 to 2006 will cover Bill's tens of millions of dollars in $ from speaking fees

This will show exactly who the Clinton's are beholden to for their nice pile of cash.

$40 million in speaking fees is a nice chuck of cash. More than most on this website I daresay.

[karynnj]

21. They likely will be released later - there's a very good chance they are not done

The more assets you have, the more likely you do not have all the inputs you need to file. It's not like he just needs to pull out a W-2 and the int/div reports from banks and mutual funds.

The point is that he has released his earlier records - as others did. She hasn't. It also has bearing on the $5 million loan to her campaign. (Last time Kerry released his in December 2003.)

[John Q. Citizen]

38. I hope her 2006 return is done. If it's not she's breaking the law. Here's Obama's

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf

[Divernan]

29. Clintons' 2006 income reported at $34.9 million

according to charts featured on DU's home page articles yesterday.

Let's ITEMIZE the problems with that level of income for a retired politician & spouse.

(1) Speaking fees for a single year and publishers' advances (if any) & one senator's salary
come no where NEAR that huge amount.
(2) We know Bill brokers deals for fees for foreign interests. Conflicts of interest for foreign policy there
(3) Bill has some kind of "foundation". Is it tax exempt? What does he pay himself for running it?
(4) What did they actually pay in taxes on $34.9 million?
(5) What tax loopholes did they use?
(6) Do we see interest being paid from a bank in maybe Grand Cayman? That means hidden wealth.
(7) What is the actual rate of tax they pay - and have they used slick tax advisors to avoid paying
much tax at all?
(8) Was the delay in releasing the 2006 return because an AMENDED return was filed? Ya know, waiting to see if Hillary looked likely to get the nomination and wanted to drop some of the loopholes and pay more tax so she wouldn't look so bad?

Now if they had $34.9 million income in 2006, we can reasonably conclude that a lot of that income was plowed right back into investments. When you have that level of wealth, you have access to invest in very high-yield funds & investment opportunities ($3 million minimum investment). We're talking 100% return in 24/30 months. So I would expect that for fiscal year 2007, the happy couple raked in at least $50 million.

On Edit: With that level of income, I think she should use her own money for her hair/makeup/botox/wardrobe, and use her donors' cash on actual campaign costs. Then maybe she could pay back all those small businesses she stiffed in Iowa.

[Tarc]

2. If the likes of Tucker Carlson cares about tax returns,

it is a good sign that it is not a significant issue that anymore cares about. That rabid little toy poodle has barked up many a pointless tree over the years.

[papau]

7. Tucker doesn't even note that Obama has not released his returns - just the final page he signs plus

a typed sheet that we are to trust Obama when he says that the summaries on the sheet are reflective of the numbers in the return - but still no real detail.

I want to know the size of the Rezko bribe that he paid taxes on.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Someone already responded to your lie, and yet the next day

you lie again:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf

[Divernan]

19. No link, as usual, I see.

Is that too much to ask?

[Skwmom]

14. Well if it wasn't a significant issue, the Clintons would have released them by now.

[Tarc]

39. You must have skipped the day your Logic 101 class covered Common Argumentative Fallacies, eh?

Your argument is a mirror of the Bush's "if you've got nothing to hide, then you don't need to worry about being wiretapped" flawed response to illegal wiretapping.

[karynnj]

24. No one is arguing that this is important because Carlson is attacking on it-

The question is why when she said she would she hasn't - when others did. It is possible nothing is there, but in that case it is another example of a candidate being secretive when being open would make the issue go away. It was not just Cheney and Nixon who had this problem.

After this, there's the fancy foot work between her and Bill Clinton on whether they will disclose the Foundation's funders.

[BeyondGeography]

34. Bill Bradley was hitting this point very hard last night on Lehrer/PBS

We know the Saudi royal family contributed $10 million, but that was only discovered because the Washington Post reviewed tax records. Clinton didn't disclose that, nor did he willingly give any information about the Giustra/Kazahkstan deal that could net the Foundation $131 million that was reported by the Times.

Bradley's point is that we need to know whether Bill could be perceived as owing all sorts of favors to these and other foreign entities, implying that a Hillary Clinton presidency could be perceived as a payback vehicle. It's a powerful political point. If she doesn't hear it from Obama, it would wind up being a big issue in the GE if she were the nominee.

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Hillary Clinton demands Opponent release His Tax Returns- NY Times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4917978

[papau]

9. Obama has not released his return - just final page he signs plus typed sheet that is "summary"

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. There are 23 pages at his site

Zero at Hillary's

23 does not = Zero

edited for the amount of pages

[npincus]

25. WRONG- Obama's 23-page 2006 Income Tax return HERE (link):

Obama's return: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf


Now, where can we find Hillary's? after all, she was demanding to see Rick Lazio's back in 2000:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD61E31F93AA1575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[karynnj]

26. Are you trying to emulate the attacks of the SBVT?

They claimed Kerry had not released his records and got many to believe it - in spite of there being 100 plus pages on his web site.

Here, Obama's return is on his web site - and it is more than you state. Just as in 2004, it was Bush with missing records, not Kerry - here it is HRC whose records are not here.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Then you release your 2006 return too. Makes about the same sense.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. What is she hiding? Is Clinton a crook? Does the vetting Hill talks about make sense?

Or is she being senseless again?

[Skwmom]

15. Maybe they made big money off of sending jobs overseas. Who knows but as

Clinton demanded of her opponent - Release your tax returns.

[Skwmom]

17. I'm not running for office. What a ridiculous argument.

[Kittycat]

18. I just read that he released his 2006 back in april of last year.

[anonymous171]

5. Every denial makes me want to see them even more.

[karynnj]

28. You know - I bet you aren't the only one

This delay likely just increases the scrutiny they will get.

[npincus]

6. HRC will regret that she didn't keep it clean and dignified

and Obama will get an education in mud wrestling. He will be a better GE candidate for it.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I heard the spokesmouth for Hillary filibustering Tucker

yesterday--she kept saying "Do you have YOUR taxes done? At least give her till April 15th!" and Tucker said (weakly), What about last year's taxes, where are they? I don't know what April 15th has to do with 2006. Ridiculous smokescreen.

[Skwmom]

16. Where is the anti-Clinton press? I'm shocked I tell you shocked.

Oh that's right, they are waiting for the general election.

[TwilightGardener]

20. Yes, they'll let her go on pretending she was "vetted", until the GOP

actually starts "vetting" her themselves, if she's the nominee. I think it's better for them to get this all out now, right? There's a Peter Paul trial going on right now, but you never hear about it in the MSM. Wonder why?

[RoadRage]

22. Have you seen this POST?????????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4917978&mesg_id=4917978

Very, very HYPOCRICIAL!

[Divernan]

31. HRC never saw a Rovian tactic she wouldn't use herself.

[RoadRage]

33. I agree... but why the hell isn't the MSM all over this?

[Jersey Devil]

23. Hiding info they know they will have to release later is classic Clinton

Of course the Clintons know that sooner or later they will definitely have to release their tax returns, certainly before the general election. But for now, they choose to hide them so that they do not have to answer questions during the primaries.

It could be there is nothing in those returns that amounts to anything, or it could be that there is information that they were engaged in activities that are highly questionable. I would tend to doubt they would take risks they know they must someday disclose with Hillary planning to run for president for several years now, but money does strange things to people and sometimes the temptation is just too much for them. Also, some people think they are so slick they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes without them suspecting anything.

But even if the info turns out to be totally innocent, they know the questions will be distracting. They are willing to hide it to minimize damage now and take the chance that it won't kill Hillary's chances in the general election. They are making the decision on whether to risk that themselves and not allowing the voters to do it because of their sense of entitlement to the nomination.

After all, just who does this skinny little squirt who is still wet behind the ears think he is to rain on their parade?

This tells me a lot about the Clintons and what they really care about - themselves. If they cared about the Democratic Party they would release not only their tax records, but also the library donor list and Hillary's appointments schedules as First Lady so that they could be fully vetted before the general election.

Basically what they are telling the Democratic Party is "fuck you, we know there's trouble here but we'll take care of it in the general election."

I think that sucks.

[midnight]

27. I'm not clear about this tax issue, but why not have both

dem. candidates have an unvailing on the same day.

[Ichingcarpenter]

30. Obama has release his 2006 returns Hillary hasn't

Get it? It is not about the 2007 returns.

[TwilightGardener]

32. Obama already released his taxes from 2006.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Obama released his 06 last year. Here it is, 23 pages. Time for Clinton to put up or get out.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf

[TheZug]

35. Let's just talk about the future--at least whenever it suits her to do so.

Otherwise, it's all about her past "experience."

[truebrit71]

36. What is she hiding? She demanded Lazios returns...why won't she release hers?

She is obviously hiding something pretty big, and could end her campaign in the spot.

She needs to release them NOW!

Stop stalling, stop delaying, and stop hiding...